PROS Dian TYG Sumakul CMC in ELT full text

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 492

CMC IN ELT: THEORIES AND PRACTICES

Dian Toar Y. G. Sumakul

Abstract

The internet has changed the way people communicate. Particularly after the introduction of Web 2.0 technology, which triggered the emergence of various Social Networking Sites (SNSs), the rate of online interactions has increased. Now, people write more in the internet. This online writing is known as CMC, or Computer-Mediated Communication. Harnad (1991) labels CMC as the 4th revolution in human communication, after language, writing, and print. Furthermore, incorporating both spoken and written communication features, Beauvois (1998) labels it as „conversation in slow motion‟, while Crystal (2001)

calls it „netspeak‟. Correspondingly, it is also considered as the hybrid (Kost,

2008) and bridge (Handley, 2010) of the two traditional modes of communication: speaking and writing. This nature of CMC is then the starting point of the idea to bring CMC at the foreground of ELT (English Language Teaching), particularly of EFL (English as a Foreign Language) Teaching. This paper is intended to provide theoretical framework that support the application of CMC in ELT. For this purpose, theories on CMC will be reviewed and findings from relevant research about the advantages of CMC in language learning will also be discussed. The second aim of this paper is to present practical suggestions of how CMC could be integrated in ELT. Within this scope, examples of the use of CMC in ELT, through a number of online tools, will also be elaborated.

INTRODUCTION

Despite the fact that there have been studies looking at how to use CMC (Computer Mediated Communication technologies into classrooms, one criticism to the idea of bringing these technologies into the classrooms is the nature of the CMC use itself. Although it is true that the internet has been part of our students life, some studies suggest that the use of CMC tools for educational purposes is still minimum (Bosch, 2009; Selwyn, 2009; and Hew, 2011). Students use these internet tools mostly for social needs. However, a more recent study (Vrocharidou & Efthymiou, 2012) shows that, although still little, there are evidence that students already use CMC technologies, such as emails, SNSs (Social Networking Sites), and IMs (Instant Messagings) or online chats, for academic needs. Demirci (2007) also found that students show positive perception on web-based exams. It is then the job of the language

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 493 teachers to discover creative and effective ways to cope with the nature of their students to promote and facilitate learning (Godwin-Jones, 2010). Another positive finding is also reported by Landu Amah (2012) mentioning that EFL students has also used CMC on Facebook, for practicing their English. It is a common phenomenon that foreign language learners are practicing using the target language by communicating with their teachers, peers, and native speakers at a distance. The ability of the language learners to collaborate, create, and share content or ideas with other users might prove useful for language learning (Lomicka & Lord, 2009), which might also play significant role in their second language acquisition (SLA).

With the fact that there have been studies suggesting the ideas of embracing CMC technologies in educational uses and our students are already familiar with these technologies, this paper is aimed at two points. First, this paper will discuss the underlying theories that supports the incorporation of CMC technologies in language teaching and learning. Second, practical examples of how these technologies have and could be utilised in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms will also be elaborated.

RELEVANT THEORETICAL AND RESEARCH BACKGROUND The Internet and Language Learning

The technology brought by the internet has brought a new medium in human communication. Traditionally, people use spoken and written forms of language to communicate each other. With the internet now, particularly after the introduction of Web 2.0, people could easily connect to each other using various internet tools such as emails, IMs, and SNSs, which have been widely known as Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). This new phenomenon in communication has intrigued some linguistic and educational researchers to discuss its potentials in educational environment (e.g. Erlich et al, 2005; Baran, 2010; Godwin-Jones, 2010;; Hew, 2011; and Anderson et al, 2012), particularly in language teaching and learning (e.g. Lafford & Lafford, 2005; Grosseck et al, 2011; and Sumakul, 2011), and really apply it in language classrooms (e.g. Blattner & Fiori, 2009; Mills, 2010; Shih, 2011; and Sumakul, 2012) .

In implementing this technology into classrooms, Roth (2009) argues that CMC activities could make the learning interactive, contextualised, and holistic; which are in line with

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 494

Plato‟s principles of education. Traditional classrooms are losing the ability to challenge and

motivate our internet generation students, who expect more from a class, not only lectures

and books. Today‟s students are accustomed to living with the internet technologies in their

everyday life. They are considered as digital natives (Prensky, 2001), who would enjoy computer and internet resources to be used in their classrooms (Luke, 2006). Bringing digital technologies in our teaching would make the class more interesting for the students. These

internet technologies have been embedded in our students‟ daily lives, and as as Chapelle (2003) suggests that we, teachers, could make use of these technologies and explore their implications for language teachers and researchers. With the same sense, Pritchard (2007: 2) argues:

“With the growing awareness of the theory associated with learning and a growing interest in the ways that new technologies might change the way that teachers teach and children learn, there is scope, perhaps even a real need, to look at what is currently known about learning, especially in relation to the new possibilities afforded by Information and Communications Technologies

(ICTs).”

Defining CMC

CMC exists not only in the form of text-based form but also in the form of video-conferencing, where people could talk like in Face-to-face (FTF) conversation. However, in linguistic studies, to distinguish it from traditional writing processes and FTF conversation, CMC is mostly related to text-based communication. Within that sense, CMC is defined as

„the direct use of computers in a text-based communication processes‟ (Miller & Sullivan, 2006: 2). Furthermore, CMC also comes in two different modes, synchronous and asynchronous (Hyland, 2003). Synchronous writing occurs when people interact in real time, while asynchronous writing occurs when people communicate in a delayed way.

In this era of Web 2.0 technology, CMC could be found, for example, in chats as synchronous, and in emails as asynchronous. In SNSs, such as Facebook or Twitter, CMC could occur both in synchronous or asynchronous forms.

Features of CMC: A Combination of Spoken and Written Forms

From traditional point of view, there were two main modes of communication, written and spoken modes (Meyer, 2009). However, since the era of the internet, particularly after the application of Web 2.0 technology, another mode has been introduced: CMC. CMC

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 495 incorporates both features of spoken and written forms. Although the mode of communication is written, it also employs several features of oral communication. Within this scope, CMC is viewed as the bridge (Chun, 1994; Handley, 2010) or the hybrid (Kost, 2008) of spoken and written languages. In addition, for this written and spoken forms incorporation, there are several names suggested for CMC. For example, Beauvois (1998) call this

„conversation in slow motion‟ and Crystal (2001) simply calls it „netspeak‟.

What features of speaking and writing are mediated in CMC? First, we can view it from their temporal elements of language production. Speaking is online, because the message, because the message is conveyed at the time of speaking, whereas writing is offline because the message is conveyed not during language production, but later, when other people read the written language. These characteristics in both modes are incorporated in CMC, with the spontaneity and informal style of spoken language are contained within the production mode of written language. For this reason, Murray (1991) considers CMC as written speech. Second, it can be discussed from their functions. Writing is reflectional and speaking is interactional (Warschauer, 1997). These two features are also attached to CMC. When you communicate on the internet, it is interactional and at the same time reflectional because people still can see and edit their message before sending it to their interlocutor during online interactions. Moreover, as it is written using computers, it could easily be stored for reflectional purposes.

Incorporating the features of both spoken and written languages, CMC is considered as the 4th revolution in human communication and cognition after language, writing, and print (Harnad, 1991). Meanwhile, Crystal (2011), in describing CMC with the internet as the medium, sees the internet as the 4th medium of linguistic communication after the phonic medium for speaking, graphic medium for writing, and visual medium for signing.

Advantages of CMC

Research suggests that CMC could bring positive effects to EFL students. In terms of language learning, the first benefit can be seen from the perspective of linguistics. It has been found that that CMC could help the students produce a higher level of language complexity

(Chun, 1994), amplify students‟ attention to linguistic forms (Warschauer, 1997), help the

development of oral proficiency (Payne & Ross, 2005), trigger greater amount of language production (Kost, 2008; Promnitz-Hayashi, 2011), help pragmatic development (Blattner &

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 496

Fiori, 2009), and have the potential for improving learners‟ cognitive skills in linguistic

analysis (Sumakul, 2011).

From the psychological perspective, CMC could engage learners to the learning activities (Meskill & Anthony, 2007; Mills, 2010), create a positive effect on the student-to-student and student-to-teacher relationship (Mazer et al, 2007), and provide a less stressful communicative environment (Kost, 2008), and develop a positive attitude towards learning (Grossecka et al, 2011). Referring back to linguistic perspective, these positive psychological conditions such as less stressful and engaging environment and positive attitude toward learning are important when they come to language production, in particular if the language

used is not the speaker‟s first or native language.

These advantages are actually the ground why CMC is suggested as a good tool in language learning. Bringing CMC activities into EFL classrooms would provide learners with an effective and fun way in learning English. Kim (2009) states that compared to learning a language without CMC, using CMC can motivate students to learn language better.

In the next section we are going to see a number of CMC tools in the internet and how they were utilised in foreign language classrooms, covering different skills. Although some of the methods used were not in English classrooms, they could be adapted in EFL learning and teaching.

CMC PRACTICES IN LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS Facebook in Grammar Classroom

Facebook is mostly used for social needs, but one use of FB is for learning (e.g. Kabilan, Ahman, & Abidin, 2010; Landu Amah, 2012). Within this purpose, Grosseck et al (2011: 1426-1427), looking at different previous studies, summarises how Facebook can be beneficial to not only students but also teachers.

Looking from teaching sequence point of view and collaborating with 3 other English teachers, Sumakul (2012) explores how teachers use Facebook in 3 different EFL classrooms in Indonesia. He found that Facebook can be used as follows:

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 497 1. After the lessons on gerund and infinitive phrases, students are given homework to

write status using gerund phrase and/or infinitive phrase on their Facebook account and also to comment each other. As the teachers are also friends with the students on Facebook, she then monitors this activity from home, and discuss the language the students use on their next meeting.

2. During a lesson about perfect and continuous tenses, the students are asked to go to Facebook using their mobile phones or laptop computers. Working in groups of three, first they are asked to find posts containing perfect or continuous tense on their

friends‟ posts, then they are asked to error analyse the posts, and finally they need to write on their Facebook statuses sentences containing continuous or perfect tense. 3. At home students are asked to write any Facebook status in English, not necessarily

related to their previous lesson. The teacher monitors this from home, and on the next meeting, she provides feedback, error analysing and explaining the ungrammatical posts.

In his discussion, Sumakul (2012) explains that when students do the Facebook homework in point 1 and 3, students do noticing on isolated grammatical patterns, which is a consciousness-raising activity. This is important for focused attention and could promote acquisition.

Facebook group for communicative grammar practice

Another Facebook activity was also carried out by Sumakul2 early this year. In his grammar class for 1st year English Department university students, he created a Facebook group for students to practise the lessons they get in the classrooms. Students were given assignments

to write on this group‟s wall and to comment each other.

2

The full research report is still being completed and not yet published. The researcher has also applied to present this research in the CELC conference on Alternative Pedagogies in May 2013, but the announcement for acceptance will be in January 2013, two months after this seminar.

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 498

Figure 1. Students‟ post and comments showing interaction on a Facebook group.

In Figure 2 above, this is part of one of the assignments where students were asked to write their future plan, practising future tenses. This is one of the posts by a student and some of the comments from her friends.

This CMC activity is similar to what Blattner and Fiori (2009) did in a French class but with different focus. They state that Facebook is a powerful learning tool that has transformed learning process of the students. When learners write on Facebook using certain grammatical patterns, it reflects the real- real-operant conditioning principle (Batstone & Ellis 2008) where the learners practise the grammar for communication with the main focus is on meaning rather than form.

The use of Facebook group could be considered as a virtual classroom without the walls like in physical classrooms. By setting the privacy of the group, that only the members of the group (i.e. the teacher and the students) can participate and see the posts, the safety of the real-world classroom could be preserved. Harmer (1998) says that keeping the safety of the classroom is important because it could assist their language use in the real world. Schwartz (2010) also makes use Facebook Group in her teaching. She creates a Facebook group for mentoring university students. Facebook groups allow the students (and also teachers) to interact and collaborate in a virtual community.

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 499 Facebook in reading classroom

One of my colleagues, Henry Wijaya, also used Facebook in his EFL classroom. It was a reading class. In introducing scanning and skimming skills to the students, the students were asked to go to their Facebook account using their mobile phones to practise scanning and skimming. For scanning, the students were asked to go to the homepage (newsfeed) of their Facebook and find who had a birthday that day, what the shortest status was, and what the

longest one. For skimming, they were asked to read their friends‟ statuses on their Facebook homepage and generalise the mood of the statuses. Since it was Monday, the mood was „I hate Monday‟.

He admitted that it was only a spontaneous idea since he thought that the original material was rather boring, and it could have been better with more thoughts and preparation. However, by using Facebook, the activity became more engaging to the students. The students could understand the concepts of skimming and scanning in reading and experience them in their own context. It is an example of contextualised learning (Roth, 2009).

Facebook in writing classroom

This activity was conducted by Shih (2011) in an EFL classroom in Taiwan. It was a blended approach: the first one-third of one-third of the semester was classroom instruction and the rest was a combination of Facebook, peer assessment, and classroom instruction. It was part of his research to investigate the effect of integrating Facebook and peer assessment with college English writing class instruction through a blended teaching approach. The figure below shows the procedure he implemented for using Facebook-integrated blended Learning.

Figure 2. Implementation procedure for using Facebook-integrated blended learning (Shih, 2010: 834)

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 500 From the finding of the research, the researcher suggests that incorporating peer assessment and Facebook in EFL writing classrooms is interesting and effective for the students. They can improve their writing skills not only from the in-class instruction but also from cooperative learning through Facebook. Moreover, blended learning that combines online and face-to-face instruction could be beneficial for both the teachers and the students.

Email for collaborative reading

Sumakul3 tried out this activity during an ESP reading class for economic university students as part of his research in finding out students‟ perception on email-based assignments. During the course, students were given a number of email based reading assignments. At first, the students were given a text to read and the questions they needed to answer and send the answers to the teacher by email. At the end of the semester the students needed to work collaboratively in their reading activity. The following tasks were set up by the teacher:

1. Students work in groups of 4.

2. The teacher finds a text in Wikipedia and send the link to Student 1.

3. Student 1 reads the text and develops 2 questions based on the text and sends them to Student 2.

4. Student 2 reads the text, answers the questions from Student 1, develop another 2 questions and sends them to Student 3.

5. The same activities are repeated until Student 4 sends two questions to Student 1. 6. At the end of this email cycle, the teacher give feedback to all of the students in each

group.

With this email assignments, students can interact with their friends at their own pace and

take time think about their responses rather than being “put on the spot”, which could hinder

their communication, as in the physical classroom (Shih, 2010). They could also get help from various resources, their friends, dictionaries, or other online tools, while completing the

3

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 501 task. This is an example of the capability of technologies in enabling our traditional 4-wall classroom to be connected to the real world.

Google Talk for communication and translation practice

This was conducted in a Bahasa Indonesia class of the PIBBI4 level 6 programme, focusing on translation skills. In using Google Talk, an IM tool, the students were asked to work in groups of 4 with the following tasks:

1. Student 1 chats with Student 2 in Bahasa Indonesia.

2. Student 2 translates the message from Student 1 into English and uses it to chat with Student 3.

3. Student 3 translates the English message from Student 2 into Bahasa Indonesia and uses it to chat with Student 4.

4. Student 4 replies the Bahasa Indonesia message from Student 4 also in Bahasa Indonesia.

5. Student 3 translates the Bahasa Indonesia message from Student 4 into English and uses it to chat with Student 2.

6. Student 2 translates the English message from Student 3 into Bahasa Indonesia and uses it to chat with Student 1.

7. Student 1 replies back to Student 2 in Bahasa Indonesia.

The complete flow of the interaction in this activity is depicted in Figure 3 below.

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4

Bahasa Indonesia

English Bahasa

Indonesia

4

PIBBI is an intensive programme of the language and culture of Indonesia conducted by the Language Training Centre of Satya Wacana Christian University. It is the oldest programme of Bahasa Indonesia for foreign learners in Indonesia.

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 502

Figure 3. Students‟ interaction using Google Talk in translation class.

From the figure above we could learn that the actual conversation is actually conducted between Student 1 and 4 and Student 2 and 3 are the translators. One might argue that with this activity only Student 2 and 3 experience the benefit of the learning from this CMC tool. However, of course the teacher could ask the students to change roles for everyone could have the same interaction and learning experience. The following figure is an excerpt from the conversation.

Student 1 transcription Student 4 transcription 11:23 AM Student 1: Halo mas

indra, selamat siang. Apa kabar anda siang ini?

11:24 AM Student 3: Indra, selamat siang, apa kabar siang ini?

Student 2: Selamat Siang Debbi. Baik dan Anda?

11:25 AM Student 4: selamat siang debbi. kabar saya sangat baik sekali bagaimana kabar kamu ?

11:28 AM Student 1: Saya juga baik :) apa kegiatan anda hari ini?

11:30 AM Student 3: Aku juga sangat baik :) apa kamu

melakukan hari ini? 11:34 AM Student 2: Hanya bekerja

sampai jam 5 siang ini, apa kegiatan Anda?

11:31 AM Student 4: hanya bekerja saja sampai nanti jam 5 sore, kalo kamu?

Student 1: wah, anda sibuk sekali ya. Apakah anda suka menonton film?

11:37 AM Student 3: Adu! Kamu sangat sibuk! Apa kamu suka menonton film?

11:44 AM Student 2: Ya, saya sangat suka itu, saya suka aksi film dan horor film, bagaimana dengan Anda?

11:41 AM Student 4: iya saya sangat suka , saya suka film action dan horor, kalo kamu ?

Figure 4. An excerpt from the students‟ interaction using Google Talk

The shaded area is actually the actual conversation between Student 1 and 4, while non-shaded area is the translation provided by Student 2 and 3. Engaging, contextual and communicative, this activity could help pragmatic development of the students. Kasper (1997) mentions two types of learning activities: activities that are able to help raising

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 503 practise the target language for communication. Both types were incorporated in this Google Talk activity.

CHALLENGES

Despite the benefits of CMC on language learning as pointed out by various studies, there things we need to consider in implementing CMC activities in our EFL classrooms. In this paper, two important challenges (probably, out of many) are suggested:

1. Some teachers are digital immigrants

Prensky‟s (2001) terms of digital immigrants could be applied to some teachers.

Compared to their digital native students, these teachers are not really capable with or accustomed to using digital technology such as the internet as the medium (Crystal, 2011) of CMC activities. This condition could lead to the fact that these teachers would not be comfortable of designing their teaching with CMC activities. Even if they try to use these digital technologies, they would be hampered by their nondigital cultural heritage (Prensky, 2001). Take the Facebook case for an example. Ratcham and Firpo (2011) report that Facebook is easy-to-use and familiar for the students, but is it the same case for the teachers? For CMC activities to be effectively used in classrooms, Karpati (2009) suggests that ICT (Internet and Communication Technology) competences are needed, not only for the students, but also for the teachers.

2. Technical obstacle: slow data transfer and still expensive internet fee

Particularly in Indonesia, in general the internet is still slow and expensive for most learners. Even if we could have our schools and campuses connected to the internet and have the CMC activities done in the language and computer laboratories, not all schools could afford the connection fee. Slow data transfer is also inefficient and would disturb the communication process in a CMC activity.

CONCLUSION

As Web 2.0 technology has garnered much attention from researchers and practitioners (Ractham & Firpo, 2011), more research and examples are available for the use of CMC in educational environment, or particularly in language classrooms. Other online tools are also out there in the internet that teachers can utilise in their teaching and in their students‟

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 504 learning. There are Wiki documents, blogging, or other SNSs. For example, Stevenson and Liu (2010) provide an analysis of how a number of Web 2.0 sites can be used for language learning. Another example, Mollett et al (2011) provide guidelines of how Twitter can be

used in university academic uses. It now depends on teachers‟ willingness, creativity, and

digital competences to incorporate these online tools in designing their classroom materials. Using these technologies in our classroom can facilitate learner- centred approach to our teaching.

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 505 REFERENCES

Anderson, B., Fagan, P., Woodnutt, T., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2012). Facebook

Psychology: Popular Questions Answered by Research. Psychology of Popular Media culture, 1(1), 23-37.

Baran, B. (2010). Facebook as a formal instructional environment. British Journal of Education Technology, 41(6), E146-E149.

Batstone, R., & Ellis, R. (2009). Principled Grammar Teaching. System(37), 194-204.

Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Conversations in Slow Motion: Computer-Mediated Communication in Foreign Language Classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2), 198-217.

Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2009). Facebook in the Language Classroom: Promises and Possibilities. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6(1), 17-28.

Bodomo, A. R. (2010). Computer-Mediated Communication for Linguistics and Literacy. New York: Information Science Reference.

Bosch, T. E. (2009). Using online social networking for teaching and learning: Facebook use at the university of cape town. Communicatio: South African Journal for

Communication Theory and Research, 35(2), 185–200. Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English Language Learning and Technology.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2011). Internet Linguistics: A Student Guide. London: Routledge.

Demirci, N. (2007). University Students' Perceptions of Web-Based vs. Paper-Based

Homework in a General Physics Course. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 29-34.

Erlich, Z., Erlich-Philip, I., & Gal-Ezer, J. (2005). Skills required for participating in CMC courses: An Empirical Study. Computers & Education, 44, 477–487.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2010). Emerging Technologies: Literacies and Technologies Revisited. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 2-9.

Grosseck, G., Branb, R., & Tiruc, L. (2011). Dear teacher, what should I write on my wall? A case study on academic uses of Facebook. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1425-1430.

Handley, Z. (2010, October 21). Computer Mediated Communication: Bridging the gaps between writing and speaking. Retrieved March 31, 2012, from Oxford University Press – English Language Teaching – Global Blog:

http://oupeltglobalblog.com/2010/10/21/computer-mediated-communication/ Harmer, J. (1998). How To Teach English, An introduction to the practice of English

language teaching. Longman.

Harnad, S. (1991). Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the Means of Production of Knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review, 2(1), 39-53.

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 506 Hew, K. F. (2011). Students' and Teachers' Use of Facebook. Computers and Human

Behaviour, 27, 662-676.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Karpati, A. (2009). Web 2 technologies for Net Native language learners: a "Social CALL".

ReCALL, 21(2), 139-156.

Kasper, G. (1997). The role of pragmatics in language teaching education. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, & B. S. Hartford (Eds.), Beyond Methods:Components of Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 113-136). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kost, C. R. (2008). Use of Communication Strategies in a Synchronous CMC environment. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating Discourse Online (pp. 153-190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lafford, P. A., & Lafford, B. A. (2005). CMC Technologies for Teaching Foreign Languages: What's on the Horizon? CALICO Journal, 679-709.

Landu Amah, O. (2012). Code Mixing in CMC. Satya Wacana School of Foreign Languages, English Language and Literature Department. Salatiga: Satya Wacana School of Foreign Languages.

Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2009). Introduction to social networking, collaboration, and Web 2.0 tools. In L. Lomicka, & G. Lord (Eds.), . In L. Lomicka & G. Lord (Eds.), The next generation: Social networks and online collaboration in foreign language learning. San Marcos: CALICO.

Luke, C. L. (2006). Situating CALL in the broader methodological context of foreign language teaching and learning: Promises and possibilities. CALICO Monograph, 5, 21-41.

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I‟ll See You on “Facebook”: The

Effects of Computer-Mediated Teacher Self-disclosure on Student Motivation, Affective Learning, and Classroom Climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1-17. Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2007). Form-focused Communicative Practice via CMC: What

Language Learners Say. CALICO Journal, 25(1), 69-90.

Miller, K. S., & Sullivan, K. P. (2006). Keystroke Logging: An Introduction. In K. P. Sullivan, & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications (pp. 1-10). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Mills, N. (2010). Situated Learning through Social Networking Communities: The Development of Joint Enterprise, Mutual Engagement, and a Shared Repertoire. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 345-368.

Mollett, A., Moran, D., & Dunleavy, P. (2011). Using Twitter in university research,

teaching and impact activities: A guide for academics and researchers. London: LSE Public Policy Group.

Motteram, G., & Sharma, P. (2009). Blending Learning in a Web 2.0 World. International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society, 7(2), 83-96.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On The Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Pritchard, A. (2007). Effective Teaching with Internet Technologies. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 507 Promnitz-Hayashi, L. (2011). A Learning Success Story Using Facebook. Studies in

Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(4), 309-316.

Ratcham, P., & Firpo, D. (2011). Using Social Networking Technology to Enhance Learning in Higher Education: A Case Study Using Facebook. 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (pp. 1530-1605).

Roth, A. D. (2009). Following Plato's Advice: Pedagogy and Technology for the Facebook Generation. Journal of Philosophy and History of Education, 59, 125-128.

Schwartz, H. L. (2010, January). Facebook, the New Classroom Commons? The Education Digest, pp. 39-42.

Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students‟ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157–174.

Shih, R.-C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(Special Issue, 5), 829-845. Stevenson, M. P., & Liu, M. (2010). Learning a Language with Web 2.0: Exploring the Use

of Social Networking Features of Foreign Language Learning Websites. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 233-259.

Sumakul, D. T. (2011). EFL Learners' Communication Strategies in Coping with

Grammatical Difficuties in Synchronous CMC. Liverpool: University of Liverpool. Sumakul, D. T. (2012). Facebook in Grammar Classrooms: A Look at 3 EFL Classes in

Indonesia. The New English Teacher, 6(1), 60-81.

Vrocharidou, A., & Efthymiou, I. (2012). Computer mediated communication for social and

academic purposes: Profiles of use and University students‟ gratifications. Computers & Education, 58, 609-616.

Warschauer, M. (1995). Virtual Connections: Online Activities and Projects for Networking Language Learners. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum:

University of Hawaii.

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481.

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 502 Figure 3. Students‟ interaction using Google Talk in translation class.

From the figure above we could learn that the actual conversation is actually conducted between Student 1 and 4 and Student 2 and 3 are the translators. One might argue that with this activity only Student 2 and 3 experience the benefit of the learning from this CMC tool. However, of course the teacher could ask the students to change roles for everyone could have the same interaction and learning experience. The following figure is an excerpt from the conversation.

Student 1 transcription Student 4 transcription

11:23 AM Student 1: Halo mas indra, selamat siang. Apa kabar anda siang ini?

11:24 AM Student 3: Indra, selamat siang, apa kabar siang ini?

Student 2: Selamat Siang Debbi. Baik dan Anda?

11:25 AM Student 4: selamat siang debbi. kabar saya sangat baik sekali bagaimana kabar kamu ?

11:28 AM Student 1: Saya juga baik :) apa kegiatan anda hari ini?

11:30 AM Student 3: Aku juga sangat baik :) apa kamu

melakukan hari ini? 11:34 AM Student 2: Hanya bekerja

sampai jam 5 siang ini, apa kegiatan Anda?

11:31 AM Student 4: hanya bekerja saja sampai nanti jam 5 sore, kalo kamu?

Student 1: wah, anda sibuk sekali ya. Apakah anda suka menonton film?

11:37 AM Student 3: Adu! Kamu sangat sibuk! Apa kamu suka menonton film?

11:44 AM Student 2: Ya, saya sangat suka itu, saya suka aksi film dan horor film, bagaimana dengan Anda?

11:41 AM Student 4: iya saya sangat suka , saya suka film action dan horor, kalo kamu ?

Figure 4. An excerpt from the students‟ interaction using Google Talk

The shaded area is actually the actual conversation between Student 1 and 4, while non-shaded area is the translation provided by Student 2 and 3. Engaging, contextual and communicative, this activity could help pragmatic development of the students. Kasper (1997) mentions two types of learning activities: activities that are able to help raising

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 503 practise the target language for communication. Both types were incorporated in this Google Talk activity.

CHALLENGES

Despite the benefits of CMC on language learning as pointed out by various studies, there things we need to consider in implementing CMC activities in our EFL classrooms. In this paper, two important challenges (probably, out of many) are suggested:

1. Some teachers are digital immigrants

Prensky‟s (2001) terms of digital immigrants could be applied to some teachers.

Compared to their digital native students, these teachers are not really capable with or accustomed to using digital technology such as the internet as the medium (Crystal, 2011) of CMC activities. This condition could lead to the fact that these teachers would not be comfortable of designing their teaching with CMC activities. Even if they try to use these digital technologies, they would be hampered by their nondigital cultural heritage (Prensky, 2001). Take the Facebook case for an example. Ratcham and Firpo (2011) report that Facebook is easy-to-use and familiar for the students, but is it the same case for the teachers? For CMC activities to be effectively used in classrooms, Karpati (2009) suggests that ICT (Internet and Communication Technology) competences are needed, not only for the students, but also for the teachers.

2. Technical obstacle: slow data transfer and still expensive internet fee

Particularly in Indonesia, in general the internet is still slow and expensive for most learners. Even if we could have our schools and campuses connected to the internet and have the CMC activities done in the language and computer laboratories, not all schools could afford the connection fee. Slow data transfer is also inefficient and would disturb the communication process in a CMC activity.

CONCLUSION

As Web 2.0 technology has garnered much attention from researchers and practitioners (Ractham & Firpo, 2011), more research and examples are available for the use of CMC in educational environment, or particularly in language classrooms. Other online tools are also out there in the internet that teachers can utilise in their teaching and in their students‟

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 504 learning. There are Wiki documents, blogging, or other SNSs. For example, Stevenson and Liu (2010) provide an analysis of how a number of Web 2.0 sites can be used for language learning. Another example, Mollett et al (2011) provide guidelines of how Twitter can be

used in university academic uses. It now depends on teachers‟ willingness, creativity, and

digital competences to incorporate these online tools in designing their classroom materials. Using these technologies in our classroom can facilitate learner- centred approach to our teaching.

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 505 REFERENCES

Anderson, B., Fagan, P., Woodnutt, T., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2012). Facebook

Psychology: Popular Questions Answered by Research. Psychology of Popular Media

culture, 1(1), 23-37.

Baran, B. (2010). Facebook as a formal instructional environment. British Journal of

Education Technology, 41(6), E146-E149.

Batstone, R., & Ellis, R. (2009). Principled Grammar Teaching. System(37), 194-204.

Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Conversations in Slow Motion: Computer-Mediated Communication

in Foreign Language Classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2),

198-217.

Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2009). Facebook in the Language Classroom: Promises and Possibilities. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance

Learning, 6(1), 17-28.

Bodomo, A. R. (2010). Computer-Mediated Communication for Linguistics and Literacy. New York: Information Science Reference.

Bosch, T. E. (2009). Using online social networking for teaching and learning: Facebook use at the university of cape town. Communicatio: South African Journal for

Communication Theory and Research, 35(2), 185–200.

Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English Language Learning and Technology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2011). Internet Linguistics: A Student Guide. London: Routledge.

Demirci, N. (2007). University Students' Perceptions of Web-Based vs. Paper-Based

Homework in a General Physics Course. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &

Technology Education, 3(1), 29-34.

Erlich, Z., Erlich-Philip, I., & Gal-Ezer, J. (2005). Skills required for participating in CMC courses: An Empirical Study. Computers & Education, 44, 477–487.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2010). Emerging Technologies: Literacies and Technologies Revisited.

Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 2-9.

Grosseck, G., Branb, R., & Tiruc, L. (2011). Dear teacher, what should I write on my wall? A case study on academic uses of Facebook. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1425-1430.

Handley, Z. (2010, October 21). Computer Mediated Communication: Bridging the gaps

between writing and speaking. Retrieved March 31, 2012, from Oxford University

Press – English Language Teaching – Global Blog:

http://oupeltglobalblog.com/2010/10/21/computer-mediated-communication/ Harmer, J. (1998). How To Teach English, An introduction to the practice of English

language teaching. Longman.

Harnad, S. (1991). Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the Means of Production of Knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review, 2(1), 39-53.

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 506 Hew, K. F. (2011). Students' and Teachers' Use of Facebook. Computers and Human

Behaviour, 27, 662-676.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Karpati, A. (2009). Web 2 technologies for Net Native language learners: a "Social CALL".

ReCALL, 21(2), 139-156.

Kasper, G. (1997). The role of pragmatics in language teaching education. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, & B. S. Hartford (Eds.), Beyond Methods:Components of Second Language

Teacher Education (pp. 113-136). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kost, C. R. (2008). Use of Communication Strategies in a Synchronous CMC environment. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating Discourse Online (pp. 153-190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lafford, P. A., & Lafford, B. A. (2005). CMC Technologies for Teaching Foreign Languages: What's on the Horizon? CALICO Journal, 679-709.

Landu Amah, O. (2012). Code Mixing in CMC. Satya Wacana School of Foreign Languages,

English Language and Literature Department. Salatiga: Satya Wacana School of Foreign Languages.

Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2009). Introduction to social networking, collaboration, and Web 2.0 tools. In L. Lomicka, & G. Lord (Eds.), . In L. Lomicka & G. Lord (Eds.), The next generation: Social networks and online collaboration in foreign language

learning. San Marcos: CALICO.

Luke, C. L. (2006). Situating CALL in the broader methodological context of foreign language teaching and learning: Promises and possibilities. CALICO Monograph, 5, 21-41.

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I‟ll See You on “Facebook”: The

Effects of Computer-Mediated Teacher Self-disclosure on Student Motivation, Affective Learning, and Classroom Climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1-17. Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2007). Form-focused Communicative Practice via CMC: What

Language Learners Say. CALICO Journal, 25(1), 69-90.

Miller, K. S., & Sullivan, K. P. (2006). Keystroke Logging: An Introduction. In K. P. Sullivan, & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing: Methods

and Applications (pp. 1-10). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Mills, N. (2010). Situated Learning through Social Networking Communities: The Development of Joint Enterprise, Mutual Engagement, and a Shared Repertoire.

CALICO Journal, 28(2), 345-368.

Mollett, A., Moran, D., & Dunleavy, P. (2011). Using Twitter in university research,

teaching and impact activities: A guide for academics and researchers. London: LSE

Public Policy Group.

Motteram, G., & Sharma, P. (2009). Blending Learning in a Web 2.0 World. International

Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society, 7(2), 83-96.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On The Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Pritchard, A. (2007). Effective Teaching with Internet Technologies. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 507 Promnitz-Hayashi, L. (2011). A Learning Success Story Using Facebook. Studies in

Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(4), 309-316.

Ratcham, P., & Firpo, D. (2011). Using Social Networking Technology to Enhance Learning in Higher Education: A Case Study Using Facebook. 44th Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences, (pp. 1530-1605).

Roth, A. D. (2009). Following Plato's Advice: Pedagogy and Technology for the Facebook Generation. Journal of Philosophy and History of Education, 59, 125-128.

Schwartz, H. L. (2010, January). Facebook, the New Classroom Commons? The Education

Digest, pp. 39-42.

Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students‟ education-related use of Facebook.

Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157–174.

Shih, R.-C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(Special Issue, 5), 829-845.

Stevenson, M. P., & Liu, M. (2010). Learning a Language with Web 2.0: Exploring the Use of Social Networking Features of Foreign Language Learning Websites. CALICO

Journal, 27(2), 233-259.

Sumakul, D. T. (2011). EFL Learners' Communication Strategies in Coping with

Grammatical Difficuties in Synchronous CMC. Liverpool: University of Liverpool.

Sumakul, D. T. (2012). Facebook in Grammar Classrooms: A Look at 3 EFL Classes in Indonesia. The New English Teacher, 6(1), 60-81.

Vrocharidou, A., & Efthymiou, I. (2012). Computer mediated communication for social and

academic purposes: Profiles of use and University students‟ gratifications. Computers

& Education, 58, 609-616.

Warschauer, M. (1995). Virtual Connections: Online Activities and Projects for Networking

Language Learners. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum:

University of Hawaii.

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice.